I don't like guns. But I don't like crime either. Some quality and insightful leftist analysis on the persistent crime problem, beyond the usual, "I'm depraved on account I'm deprived", explores new issues. Among these are the way in which crime victims are disproportionately poor and/or minorities, the way in which crime fighting is expensive and takes taxpayer funding, and, most obviously, how safe communities have nothing to do with financial explosion, globalization and the hyper-mobility of capital. That is, crime has no longer any thing to do with the interests of the corporate rich.

Sixty years ago, crime threatened to impinge on the growth and profitability of US capitalism. Now that so much of US corporate profit stems from outside the country, stable, safe and healthy local communities are no longer essential to US corporate capitalism in the way they once were. Hence, we see cuts in law enforcement funding and other community based programs.

Foster's vigilantism is emblematic of related trends in contemporary society. The trends toward alienation, individuation, and privatization. From a law enforcement point of view, Foster is a right-wing Republican, Grover Norquist, K Streeter's wet dream!! In an epoch of massive tax cuts and shrinking government down to such a small size it can be drowned in a bathtub Foster's self reliance is just what the tax cutter ordered. She takes care of the problem herself rather than waiting for a tax engorged, bureaucratized, law enforcement system to do it. It not only saves money it is also in step with the new "who needs due process" attitudes so popular in Washington DC these days.

Foster's portrayal, like the torture movies that stand in as an Abu Ghraib metaphor, resonates with the political attitudes and agenda of the Conservative elite in Washington political circles today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Seems to me that the author's main concern with the movie is that Foster's character doesnt fit the numbers. And while those numbers are important and full of meaning, I dont know why a fictional character should stick to them. I am sick of people saying "women dont act that way" or "a man would never say that" whenever a fictional character steps outside the norm. Statistics are a great tool to demand policy changes from your goverment, but not mandatory when writing a script.

Moreso, there are characters in real life that walk outside the norm, in every way. Most films, in fact, focus on the extraordinary, be it an exceedingly kind, compasionate or bright person or the complete opposite. And while its refreshing and enlightening to see works focusing on normal people, you can't demand for all fictional works to do so.

As to lysistrata, there was a spanish film with that name, that adapted a contemporary play, wich in turn was also an adaptation of a comic book by german gay cult author Ralph König. I only recomend the comic book tho.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the new equality - making women as violent as the men is a way to legitimize violence - rather that try and control it and change it and Hollywood is part of the problem - after years of giving women stereotypical gender roles prescribed by old values - they have seen the error of their ways and in the only way they can equalize the huge gender imbalance they help create - they have made women equal killers as men....and of course its so normalized that no one really gets it - in the real world however crime stats are showing an increase in violent crimes by females
and of course more silly women are joining the military to learn how to kill like the boys - now thats equality isn't it, after all girls can do anything

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Amid all this gun craziness along comes Hollywood, trying to sell us on the idea that women are just as into the violence as our male counterparts or can be. But that's just wrong.

In other words, women are fundamentally different from men. But feminism has insisted for years that women and men weren't fundamentally different at all.

Hmm. A conundrum!

Ah, I think I got it. Women are not fundamentally different from men, yet they're fundamentally better than men.

That must be what she means.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Or maybe a big budget update of "Lysistrata," the Aristophanes play about women who withhold sex from their husbands to stop the Peloponnesian War. That would be really scary."

So the author supports using sex as a weapon to control men and get what they want?

This has always been an issue i've had with feminist. Isn't that what men do when they rape, beat, and brutalize, yet on a smaller scale? Isn't this just further ripping the divide? Shouldn't love and sex be outside the bounds of politics and inside the bounds of respect?

It just seems like a cop out to me.

Also, Hilary Clinton taking away guns isn't a scary movie... more like science fiction. You know, Alternate time line?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The first person shooter phenomenom started really blooming in the early to mid 1990's. I am personally disgusted by it. However this generation along with generation X, adore them. Naturally not everyone who falls into those two generations love that genre, however many millions do. It simply gives the entire world a deep insight into the minds of Americans.

First person shooters went from totally dominating and destroying {in my opinion as a fan}, the video game industry, to being converted into movies almost endlessly in Hollywood. You are hard pressed to find a decent video game released for any console or PC today, that does not promote this digusting genre. The sad thing is the U.S. Army has "America's Army" as a free download on it's website and it is one of the top online FPS! These simple minded little fools who play them continuously state that it is "just a game."

The realism in FPS far, far, far outweigh the "its just a game" concept. Many articles have been written about this deadly addiction, including one I remember by an officer in the military warning against them. Yet you know Americans. They will defend their "right" to own guns real or not! So when the military comes a calling for you Mr. or Mrs. Frag master, just be prepared to sign on the dotted line! After all, you now have the "skills" to be a Marksman or Expert shooter! Heck you can murder people {oh I mean "kill"} people and even get paid doing it! Then again, maybe with today's America, you will just be dragged into an International "theater" as the military personnel loves to call it, where you can have "fun" putting holes in human beings children to adults. All just wonderful "character" building experiences.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Al Sharpton: No Justice, No Peace!

Lysistrata: No Peace, No Pussy!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

remember the old joke, "just like a [fill in the blank] to bring a knife to a gun fight."

Always missing in these anit-firearms pieces is the fact that murderers prefer killing by knife, blunt object, and strangulation, -- much quieter -- and the numbers exceed the ones by firearms by a pretty large margin. Not to belabor the point, but it's a pretty sure bet that having a firearm, and being ready to use it, definitely will protect you from getting knifed, bludgeoned, or strangled, uh, I'd say by about twenty feet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When a girl has been brow-beaten by her parents in a patriarchal household, sexually abused and beaten by her brothers, she will grow up with severe emotional problems, obviously. And who but other women are there to help her learn how to feel good about herself when extended psychiatric counseling is not available? Do many such women exist? Does the Author of this oh so PC article deny it? Not likely.

So, what can such a young woman do when her own physical aura exudes victimhood, subconsciously projecting weakness in a World of predators and prey? She joins a physical fitness club that urges her to go jogging in the Park. But there she may be raped by a psychopathic young man who witnessed his father abusing his mother, but cannot bear to think about it, so he insanely repeats that scenario, becoming the demon that terrorized him.

So, are the Parks overflowing with police persons and is psychiatric counseling available to all the potential rapists? No? Then what can the young woman do to save herself? If she is raped and beaten again she will go mad and kill herself to get away from an unbearable life! What can she do?

She can go to the local gun club and train in the use of fire arms, and the next time she goes jogging she can pack a pistol, yes, just like Jodie Foster! Then, if she is attacked, she can reform the perpetrator forever so he'll never do it again!

Otherwise, if not, she will have to wait a really long time until the Author of this article and her PC associates eventually succeed in ridding this nation of its guns. But frankly, I hope she doesn't wait, because she may become just another statistic for an endless political campaign, and to me her life is worth a lot more than that! So, right on young lady. YOU HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DEFEND YOURSELF !!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When I was in my early 20s, I and some friends decided to learn about guns. We were so ignorant: couldn't tell if a gun had a safety, didn't know some guns didn't have safetys, couldn't tell if guns were loaded, didn't know bullets can go through walls.

So one of us had a boyfriend into guns, he taught us all this stuff, we went to a range and shot some handguns and rifles.

I'm glad I did it, and I'm now a happy handgun owner. For one thing, if a kid finds a gun, I know what to do to keep the kid safe. I can take the gun, unload it, don't have to wait for police or big strong man to do it for me.

And at the time, I lived alone in a first floor apartment. I've been raped once as a teenager, and fought off 3 other attempts. I swore the next time the guy would be shot rather than me get raped. Things have moved on, I'm a lot safer today although also dislabled, but for about 10 years I slept with a loaded gun by my bedside and felt much safer for it.

I recommend feminist Paxton Quigley's book "Women and Guns". It's probably out of print, but she's another feminist for women with guns.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

People who are filled with fear by the news media, advertisers and politicians love the vicarious thrills provided by movies that suggest all we have to do is get a big enough gun, learn how to use it, and we will suddenly be in control of the uncontrollable world about us. It's big money to film makers.

Charles Bronson did it, over and over. Sally "If mothers ruled the world" Field did it, as did Mel Gibson, Denzel Washington, on and on, etc., etc., yada, yada, ad infinitum.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's unfortunate that the reviewer stopped paying attention to the film about twenty minutes in and began composing this piece. She missed an unusually well-written, directed, and acted production.

Much of the statistical bludgeoning here was addressed during the film; not to spoil it for anybody, but the protagonist's incongruence with the "known facts" is one of keys to the plot.

This film is one woman's story. Not everything is a political statement.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1. The author regards some victims as "worthy" and other victims as "unworthy". This "worth" is determined by the sex of the person who is doing the victimizing rather than that of the person who is being victimized.

To wit: Only women victims of violent men are worthy. Women victims of violent women are unworthy, men who are victims of violent men are unworthy and men who are victims of violent women are beneath contempt (he had it coming). This is a morally-untenable position to take, not to mention a simplistic, reductionist, prejudicial and vacuous one. Does the author not regard men as being equal in value to women?

2. The author references an advocacy group (i.e: a group with an axe to grind) which wishes to provide imprisoned women murderers who claim to be abused with a special way out of prison. If this advocacy group does not also advocate a similar measure for male murderers who claim to have been victims of abuse, then how is this not a sexist advocacy group?

3. Since almost anybody imprisoned for murder would claim to have done it in self-defense (every country which commits an act of war claims to be doing it in self-defense as well) the claims of this advocacy group tell us nothing. Why would the author privilege women who claim to act in self-defense over the (dead) man who is not alive to cross-examine the accusation?

4. It's obvious that the author judges violent men (evil) by a very different standard than she judges violent women (innocent). So if we shouldn't take violent women seriously, why should we take women's opinions seriously?

5. Since the author says that men are more likely to murder other men, does this not suggest that her underlying view of women being the primary victims of violence is factually-challenged?

I'd like to see some answers to these questions that don't involve non-sequitur screams of "misogynist!" as there isn't a single trace of misogyny in anything I've written above. Thank you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

yellow,

You start off sounding so enlightened with; > "Feminism is about a different approach to issues and a different outlook, not about making it acceptable for women to behave and think like men" < then you have to go to, >"whose attitudes shape a flawed system of which feminism it a wholistic critique".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I just realized... the right likes to declare war on poverty, drugs, terrorism, etc

whereas the left likes to declare war on guns.

so we go back and forth ... war on poverty, war on drugs, war on terrorism, war on guns ... why dont the two parties just get together and declare war on reason altogether?

Of those nearly a billion guns, how many do you suppose are actually "responsible" for killing someone? I mean, a death caused by a defect in the weapon? 100? 1000? (Not counting DU, because that is by design.) Most of the time they kill because there is a person pulling the trigger! Minor distinction? I think not.

You know this is all staged, right? First the republicans come in and pass draconian anti terror laws that roll back civil liberties. Then they piss everyone off and get themselves thrown out. Then the democrats come in and take everyone's guns and create a nanny/police state. How much of what the republicans have done will the democrats undo? Maybe 1% of it? By the time they get to 2% they'll have gotten their asses thrown out 8 years from now... assuming this scheme can continue for 8 more years!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The placement of the Brave One commentary underneath the bit about domestic violence is interesting. In North Carolina (likely as everywhere), some domestic violence perpetrated against women is very frightening. Guys threaten women, they break into their homes,they go to jail, get out and go to their ex's house and try to strangle her, stab her, shoot her, you name it. They get arrested, serve their time, get out and try to kill their ex girlfriends/wives. I'm on the police beat for my newspaper and those cases literally make me feel sick.

In the recent past, this state has been very bad about domestic violence situations -- considering it a romantic entanglement, it would seem. That's changed greatly in the past decade. A law recently passed allows a shorter wait time for women victims of domestic violence to obtain a handgun for self-defense. The law passed with zero "no" votes, even though our congress is primarily made up of Democratic congresspeople.

Guns in the hands of criminals does make society dangerous for all of us, but until a way is figured out to get those types to refuse to buy guns illegally, they may be absolutely essential to saving some lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How does the author propose that women protect themselves from rapists? "NEVER...WALK...ALONE!!!" doesn't cut it. That results in a huge loss of freedom for women.

I don't believe that women are ditzes who are unqiuely incapable of handling guns.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Everybody avoids one point.
It has been shown that for every ONE potential offender, home invader or rapist 'stopped' with a forearm OVER FORTY innocent people are 'stopped' because of mistaken identity or accident.
I guess that in the USofA that sounds like a small price to pay to keep both the male and female members of the 'small-dick' brigade happy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's funny how Susan Kobrin turned this article into an anti 2nd Amendment screed - and ignored the blatant racism of the film!!

The basic storyline is, the Jodie Foster character, a White woman, and her South Asian doctor boyfriend are attacked by Hispanic men in a park. They're both robbed, and the boyfriend is killed.

Now, of course, in the American racial pantheon, South Asians aren't quite White - but they're far above Latinos and Blacks.

Then, she arms herself, and goes around, Bernhard Goetz style, and blows away Black and Latino men who she feels "threaten" her.

Of course, many White Americans are so paranoid about people of color that any Black or Latino male is "threatening" - since the film is shot from the Foster character's POV (and was written by a White screenwriter and directed by a White director), this point of view gets justified.

Kobrin nowhere mentions that!

Beyond that, the real problem in America is that inner city residents have our 2nd Amendment rights systematically infringed by gun control.

Because of all the discrimination related poverty in our communities, we have the most crime, but, in just about every state, the right of inner city people of color to defend ourselves is infringed

This in a country where the right to self-defense is constitutionally guaranteed!!

Despite the author's claims, guns make people safer - ever wonder why places like Afghanistan or Nigeria are so violent?

Just look at the UN gun statistics - most folks over there are unarmed - in Nigeria, only 1 out of 100 people has a gun.

So, in those places, only the army, the cops, the criminals, the landowning oligarchs and the terrorists are armed, and everbody else is at their mercy.

Why do you think the Hutu militias were able to kill 920,000 Tutsis with machetes?

Because none of the Tutsi villagers were armed!

In conclusion, while the author may love gun control (that is, a monopoly on gun ownership by cops, bosses and criminals with everbody else unarmed at their mercy) and she may have fantasies of women cockteasing men to give up their arms, I believe in an armed populace, with every adult, male or female, Black, White Latino, American Indian or Asian, armed and able to defend themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Um... to clarify, the original Lysistrata is a classic ancient Greek comedy by Aristophanes, not a comic book.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We are supposed to seduce the guns away from the men? It's a short term tactic I'll use if I have absolutely nothing else, but like the right to vote, I rather have the gun in my hand than to have to beg for it when it's pointing /at/ me.

Women, any persons, who have guns, will get themselves killed by it, IF, they aren't absolutely willing to use it in /lethal/ self-defence, when the situation arise. This is difficult since society has raised women to above all, think of everybody else but themselves. Just mere decades ago, the concern during a rape trial was over the poor young man's life, a valid one, but one that should not dwarf the woman's life.

Seriously, if a woman have the problem pulling the trigger to save 'just herself', which is, OMG, selfish, she should think of the potential future victims that could be her friends or family, SOMEBODY's friend and family, and shoot.

I approve of this movie, because as movies does affect today's society greatly, the portrayal of a /sane/ woman not afraid to use the force that men has been using for ages, will send out the message that some women out there are indeed a force to be reckon with when pushed. Thus, increasing the overall safety of women, the way the bright colours of poisonous beetles does when predators learn that they don't taste good.

If some woman were to follow this example, it's better than just being killed, if she gets caught, then the public will know that women who fights back exist. The patriarchy can jail her, but they can't bring back the abuser she killed, and thus, more men who wants to hurt women will learn not to hurt women for safety of their own lame asses. The woman who kills her abuser, will either benefit as an individual, or if she couldn't, then a message would still have been made, for her side, and in waves, in waves, things will change.

It's still not addressing the root of the problem, men who wants to hurt women, people who want to hurt in general, but for now, it'll do.

- MG

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Watch Jodie Foster's interview with Jon Strewart
"I'm not going to destroy myself, I'm going to destroy you"

The way she framed it is, guns is not the solution for every woman, but destroying those who are directly hurting us, is an /alternative/, a relatively better alternative, than destroying ourselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In response to the racial overtones in the film:

The only reason Erica Baine got away with her crimes is because she was a "pretty" blonde white woman, small-framed, highly educated, etc. etc. Basically she was a model citizen. She's the kind of person that all Americans should aim to be, right? (We won't get into the whole lesbian thing, lol.)

I for one found this point HILARIOUS! As a black lesbian woman, sitting in the theater with my white lesbian friends, I was the only one who noticed that her looks and race were the reasons she was getting away with murder (and get it right, people, it was murder, and murder is a crime, except in matters of life-or-death). It was ironic. That point alone made me want to like the movie. The idea that the writer/director/casting director, etc. had it in their mind that only a blonde wealthy white woman can get away with murder in this country was awesome to me. I think very few people appreciated this irony, though. And there were a lot of other problems that I had with this film.

Killing someone is wrong. Point blank. Period. Raping someone is also wrong. Stealing from people is also wrong. Threatening to rape/steal from/murder someone is wrong. The ONLY situation in which I would ever say it is JUSTIFIABLE (not RIGHT, there’s a difference) to kill someone is if you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are about to die at that person’s hands yourself. End of story. No questions asked.

Those who would argue that Baine's life was threatened each and every time she killed someone are CLEARLY as paranoid as the mass media/right wing propaganda about inner city violence and black/latino/male criminality would want you to believe. Way to go, Alternet liberals!

While I would be the first one to rail against men for their apparent lack of self-restraint in sexual attraction/aggressiveness towards women on the streets, women in their lives, women in their homes, it's clear to me that in this film, in particular, Baine was only sexually attacked ONCE, and only in mortal danger, ONCE after the initial attack in the park. It was the convenience store guy, who would have murdered her in order to get away with murder, and the two guys on the train who would have cut her vaginally, a sexual crime.

Let me ask you all - what intelligent person would stay in the subway car after witnessing some imbecilic, childlike men harassing everyone else on the train?! That is the first thing you learn as a child – when you see a fight/crime, RUN AWAY. Duh. Erica Baine WAITED that situation. She WANTED to kill those guys, and that's just plain wrong. You may want to argue that as women, who are routinely harassed in public spaces, our rights to sit in any subway car we choose without being threatened are infringed, and therefore we should not leave the situation. Philosophically you have the right idea. Logically, you do not. As we see in the movie, the dudes on the train were harassing EVERYONE, black, white, male, female, young, old. They showed no discrimination. It was not because Erica Baine was who she was that they harassed her. It was because she WAS TESTING THEM and they were already LOOSE CANNONS. She left herself in a situation where they would threaten her, she knew it, while she could have left the train car and let those assholes duke it out between themselves. She wanted to kill those men, plain and simple. NEXT!

In all of the other situations in the movie, except the convenience store situation and the initial park beating, Baine CHASED AFTER those men, and it was blatantly wrong.

See my next comment...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I probably won't see this one, but I did see Flightplan and The Panic Room.

Kind of a pattern there.
Scared white lady fighting back.
Nothing wrong in defending yourself.
But I only see Hollow Wood trying to scare female WASPs with this one and the others...be afraid, be very afraid.

Why don't they come out with a movie about some very shady political leaders who conspire to let innocent people in office towers be murdered by paid assassins so as to start a war as an excuse to rob the U.S. Treasury.

I'm sure that one would sell out at the box office.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]